Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Hitler: The Example of Christianity or a Mad Man Interpreted by Ignorance?

Posted on: February 17, 2007 - 11:37pm

M

Posts: 68

Joined: 2007-02-04

Offline

Hitler: The Example of Christianity or a Mad Man Interpreted by Ignorance?

Browsing this forum for some time I have often seen the argument that Hitler was a Christian, as though it had some sort of meaning behind it. I often wonder what the reason is for claiming that Hitler was a Christian. I really cannot find any rational reason as to why it's such a hot topic and is used excessively among the anti-theistic/anti-Christian community. I would think that by claiming to be rational one would easily catch particular fallacies that they are so fond of pointing out to their opponents. While this topic will be about Hitler and other figures of World War Two and what I consider their actual beliefs, it must be said that the use of Hitler against Christians as a sort of evidence is a fallicious argument. Even if Hitler did believe himself to be a Christian, this sort of example does not justify claims that Christianity is in any way evil or wrong. All it really is, is a guilt by association fallacy.

But for the sake of a much larger and more interesting discussion (since uncovering the fallacy, while easy is in no way fun), let us entertain the idea that Hitler being a Christian is some sort of justifiable evidence against Christianity.

Hopefully, I think most people here know some general history regarding Hitler. He was raised by common parents, had an abusive father who beat him and his loving Catholic mother constantly (all of these things strikingly similar to Stalin's upbringing). Adolph then went to a Christian school, being presuaded by his mother who wanted him to be a priest, where he did quite poorly. This led him to drop out and pursue the life of an artists, which brought him to a point in his life of great hardship and poverty. Psychohistorians note that he also was unable to ever paint humans. He had this complex about painting human beings and rather liked painting landscapes.

After a long period of time he joined World War I where he found his destiny as a soilder. Afterwards, he came to power and not too long later World War II began. So that's the basic summary of it all.

It is said that the very fuel he used in hating the Jews and other 'unwanteds' came from his Christian beliefs; however, many who bring this objection up don't ever consider other possible factors involved; his childhood past under the abuse of his father, the fact that he began reading certain media that perpetuated the idea of a superior human race and the destruction of the Jews way before his time in office (and more during his time as a struggling arists), and his race complex by always characterizing the Jews for his problems (even going so far as to blame the fact that he couldn't attend a certain university as a plot by the Jews).

Certainly this could all be considered mere conjecture, but I have yet to hear any credible historians cite that Christianity was the source of his prejudices. In fact, if anything, these quotes by Hitler himself published in 1953 from the book called "Hitlers Table Talk:1941-1944", seem to honestly show his true face regarding Christianity. Please make note that these are copy and pasted from another source and that I did not in fact write this out, but they should be verifiable and credible nonetheless:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

_________________

Which brings me to my next few points. Many Theists make the error of also blaming Atheism for the likes of Stalin, but this is absurd. Atheism, in and of itself cannot produce something becauseby definition it is a lack of belief in something; however, this does not exclude Atheists in the least bit from belief. Many state that if the world was rid of religion, many of the evils of this world would vanish. I beg to differ. As I stated earlier, Atheists are not immune to beliefs. They are not protected from ideologies. If anything, Stalin proved that the lack of belief in God does not solve these problems. He did not prove that Atheism was the problem, but simply showed that no matter how many ideologies or followings we dismiss, atrocities of all sorts will prevail. Neo-Darwinism, a much celebrated form of thought these days was one of the primary motivators behind many of these Atheistic and anti-religious men. So it is true that we cannot say, "Atheism has caused this and that", but we can certainly say that a belief was followed and that Atheists cannot hide from all beliefs.

Now, I do not wish to get into a huge debate regarding the a logical consistency of Neo-Darwinism; however, I will state that I feel it is perhaps one of the most dangerous ideologies to follow if one wishes to be logically consistent with their beliefs. I could be wrong, mind you all.

So what's the point of this rant? I wasn't really out to prove anything in favor of Hitler or in Christianity really. I wasn't out to prove that Atheism is 'wrong'. All I really posted this for was for reflection and discussion, because I honestly think that to use these examples against Theists, yet consider ones own philosophies to be nuetral is not only unfair, but dishonest and anti-intellectual in thought.

Certainly we disagree with one another on certain positions and where our beliefs lead us, but I find that these cliches that are perpetuated against Theists, such as the Hitler myth are outrageous and false.

And yes, Hitler was excommunicated.

Discuss

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

Hitler claimed to be Christian to justify the killing of the Jews (as retribution for Jesus) however his "faith" was misplaced as he wanted to be a God unto himself. It's the same as the example of the KKK claiming to be Christian and basing their argument that the bible supports white as the true race even though its manipulation to an extreme.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

Hitler claimed to be Christian to justify the killing of the Jews (as retribution for Jesus) however his "faith" was misplaced as he wanted to be a God unto himself. It's the same as the example of the KKK claiming to be Christian and basing their argument that the bible supports white as the true race even though its manipulation to an extreme.

I think not. I think he used Christianity to manipulate the German people whom were primarily Christian...as well as for a time draw the Catholic Church's attention away from him.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

Hitler, allegedly, was obsessed with some wierdass psuedo paradigm which, believe it or not was based around wagner and some kinda germanic arian thing.

The lines get real blurry as a million and one conspiracy theories bubble up to obscure the past but I reckon there's enough smoke to justify some kinda superstitious occult link. Things like religious relics and paintings and stuff crop up way to often, imo, for there not to have been some strangeness afoot.

Also he was reputed to be a nostradamus fan. When he changed his surname from Schickelgruber to the more catchy 'hitler' its rumoured that he choose the name, in part, bacause it bore a striking similarity to Nostro's 'Hister'

Whatever the truth may turn out to be there's no doubt about it, he was a peculiar character. I suspect christianity would have been the tip of the iceberg.

Hitler, allegedly, was obsessed with some wierdass psuedo paradigm which, believe it or not was based around wagner and some kinda germanic arian thing.

The lines get real blurry as a million and one conspiracy theories bubble up to obscure the past but I reckon there's enough smoke to justify some kinda superstitious occult link. Things like religious relics and paintings and stuff crop up way to often, imo, for there not to have been some strangeness afoot.

Also he was reputed to be a nostradamus fan. When he changed his surname from Schickelgruber to the more catchy 'hitler' its rumoured that he choose the name, in part, bacause it bore a striking similarity to Nostro's 'Hister'

Whatever the truth may turn out to be there's no doubt about it, he was a peculiar character. I suspect christianity would have been the tip of the iceberg.

A genious of insanity I think. Truly fascinating and intelligent, but a man that I'd prefer to never probe the mind of.

I think if Hell were to exists it would have been in his mind.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

throughout history, there have been three types of despots. The ones that decided to utilize religion to keep the masses in check (Hitler), the ones who saw it as a threat and destroyed it (Stalin, although in fairness, the communist countries were such extreme cults of personality that they were essentially religious), or the religious leaders who keep the people in check and at the same time, are also imprisoned by their insane beliefs (Ayatollah Khomeini and Tomas de Torquemada). Whichever one you choose does not change the fact that you are a despot, so what is the point of this argument? The argument "communists were atheist and atheism is therefore no better than the Christians who boiled people alive during the Inquisition and pogroms" is a historical fallacy. Check this post I wrote a week ago:

But the point I was trying to make over and over again was that the communists most definitely were not atheist in any real sense of the word. They may have thought they were, but they were crazy. They were a cult, they WORSHIPPED their leaders. They bowed to their portraits. Have you ever looked at Communist China or Russia? The Great Leap Forward? The Cultural Revolution? Why did the cultural revolution happen? How was Mao able to thwart the Moderates and get Lin Bao on his side? He printed millions of copies of the little red book (more red books have been printed than bibles) and distributed them across the PLA? How was he able to raise an army of young fanatics to destroy the capitalist influence coming from the moderate right? Communist China had the most effective brainwashing program in history. These kids were prepared to kill (and they definitely did, almost 20 million people) and die for Mao. He raised a fucking army of Red Guards who went on one of the most awful reigns of terror in history.

So the people worshipped him, thought him a demigod, killed for him, died for him, his book of "wisdom" was more widely read than the bible, everyone had to read it under pain of death.

Hmmm, can you say cult? That doesn't sound very atheist to me.

Anyway, as for the issue of Hitler. There are many quotes suggesting he was devout. This may have been to win over Catholic Germany. There were many quotes suggesting he was prepared to wipe religion off the face of the Earth. We will never know for sure what went on in his terrible mind.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

By the way, Hitler was excommunicated for what was one of his better acts (suicide.) Apparently according to the Catholic Church, the holocaust wasn't exactly "cool", but not as criminal as taking your own life.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team

Nobody likes to use Hitler's name anywhere, M. The sole problem is that theists are known for the "guilty by association" conception, when they say something like "Stalin was atheist, so atheism must be wrong", and trust me, it happens a lot.

And since experience has proven that, to a fundamentalist Christian, it is useless to explain what logical fallacy he's making, we try defeating with their own weapons.

Oh, and, by the way, how about quoting from earlier than 1941, when his mental condition wasn't that strong?

By the way, Hitler was excommunicated for what was one of his better acts (suicide.) Apparently according to the Catholic Church, the holocaust wasn't exactly "cool", but not as criminal as taking your own life.

No. Sorry. He was excommunicated with the rest of the Nazis by the Catholic Church for simply being a Nazi.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

And had any of you read the second portion of the reply you would have noticed that I didn't blame Atheism for Stalin, rather I stated that Stalin was a prime example of atrocities regardless of religion or not.Atheists are not immune to belief. Period. Destroy religion and these things will still happen.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

Browsing this forum for some time I have often seen the argument that Hitler was a Christian, as though it had some sort of meaning behind it.

The flaw in this argument is that it's completely moot as to whether Hitler was a christian.. I could give you an even longer list of pro christian quotes, and we could just play a game of selective quoting all day, but both arguments are moot.

What matters is that Hitler called upon the christian hatred of jews inspired by the german Martin Luther. Hitler didn't invent christian hatred of jews. Christians did. Christians already had no problem hating jews. Hitler merely called upon this pre-existent hatred in order to generate the scapegoat that any dictator requires for power.

Now, take a look at what Martin Luther, the most influential german theologian in history, had to say about the jews, and you tell me if Luther's hatred didn't play a role in the holocaust:

Luther's Racism

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph

Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews:

(1) burn their schools and synagogues;

(2) transfer Jews to community settlements;

sound familiar?

(3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous;

(4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death;

(5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism;

(6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury;

(7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.

sound familiar?

Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?

Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.

So again, whatever Hitler's religion was (and he was religious) its moot. What matters is that christianity itself had already inculcated hatred of jews, and Hitler called upon that religious hatred.

Quote:

Which brings me to my next few points. Many Theists make the error of also blaming Atheism for the likes of Stalin, but this is absurd. Atheism, in and of itself cannot produce something becauseby definition it is a lack of belief in something;

stalin killed in the name of his dogmatic ideaology.

Quote:

however, this does not exclude Atheists in the least bit from belief.

You've just said that atheism itself is not the cause. That's all that matters here. Whether or not a particular atheist holds to an ideaology is therefore moot. The problem is dogmatic thinking ergo provided that a person avoids dogmatism, they avoid the problem of religion/state ideology.

The problem is dogmatism.

Quote:

Many state that if the world was rid of religion, many of the evils of this world would vanish. I beg to differ. As I stated earlier, Atheists are not immune to beliefs. They are not protected from ideologies.

You've just come close to identifying the real problem: dogmatic acceptance of beliefs. Both religion and ideaologies inspire such thinking, hence they are in fact the problem.

Do you want a religion without dogma? We already have a name for that: philosophy.

Browsing this forum for some time I have often seen the argument that Hitler was a Christian, as though it had some sort of meaning behind it.

Oh, not this old refuted argument yet again. The flaw in this argument is that it's completely moot as to whether Hitler was a christian... he made both pro christian and con christian statements, and we could just play a game of selective quoting all day. That's just dishonest. What matters is that Hitler called upon the christian hatred of jews inspired by the german Martin Luther. Hitler didn't invent christian hatred of jews. Christians did. Christians already had no problem hating jews. Hitler merely called upon this pre-existent hatred in order to generate the scapegoat that any dictator requires for power. Now, take a look at what Luther said about the jews, and you tell me if christianity didn't play a role in the holocaust: Luther's Racism The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were: "Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb." Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; sound familiar? (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.sound familiar? Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists? Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.

So what' your point yet again?Let us entertain the idea that this was the only factor involved...does this mean Christianity need be denounced because of a few mad men who believed things contrary to other Christian views? Oh wait...no, that's not it. We should just denounce all of religion as well because that's the problem. It has nothing to do with people's ignorance or insanity.I wonder how you view Stalins beliefs that had no affiliation to religion at all. I suppose that his beliefs were "like religion" only because they were negative, but that every other Atheists doesn't really have any beliefs. And I think the quotes are very welcome seeing as it appears no one knows very much about his true views on Christianity.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

I think its pretty clear, take some time to actually read it over, I just posted it.

Quote:

Let us entertain the idea that this was the only factor involved...

That's not my claim, but OK.

Quote:

does this mean Christianity need be denounced because of a few mad men who believed things contrary to other Christian views?

Right, why denounce christianity just because its dogmatic inculcation of racial hatred led to the slaughter of millions of across history, from the crusades to the witch trials to the inquisition to the near genocide of 'heathen indians' to Hitler's psychotic hatred of jews?

Quote:

.I wonder how you view Stalins beliefs that had no affiliation to religion at all.

I did in fact indict dogmatic thinking in Stalin's case, and I drew a parallel between religion and ideaology based on dogma.

Please take some time to read over the post you've tried to respond to...

I actually read over all the responses you gave and I have come to the conclusion that you are confused and unjustified in your claims.

First of all, you claim that dogmatism is the problem. Then you claim that ideologies and religion are the problem, thinkin that one automatically supports the other. The funny thing about it first is that you cannot seem to realized that you yourself are dogmatic, though there is nothing wrong with being dogmatic in and of itself:

I would take your claim that Philosophy is immune from dogmatism to be an adequate example of this definition.

Furthermore, you seem to believe you are free from ideologies, which I also find to be absurd and a blatant lie.

And good for you for picking up on my Stalin example. It goes to show that any ideology and any religion can be abused and that we judge whether they are abused or not on the basis of a Natural Law ("good" and "Evil"/"negative" and "positive"). Unless of coure you're a moral relativists, but then I have no idea why you are arguing then to begin with.

I think you're digging a hole for yourself when you try to justify the acts of Stalin as "religious", but then say that you and other Atheists are immune from "dogmatism and ideologies".

Shall I bring up Metaphysical Naturalism...Neo-Darwinism? These things can't be abused? Moral Relativism? There are quite a few that can be listed and no where are any of these immune from your simple and mindless critique.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

So what' your point yet again?Let us entertain the idea that this was the only factor involved...does this mean Christianity need be denounced because of a few mad men who believed things contrary to other Christian views? Oh wait...no, that's not it. We should just denounce all of religion as well because that's the problem. It has nothing to do with people's ignorance or insanity.I wonder how you view Stalins beliefs that had no affiliation to religion at all. I suppose that his beliefs were "like religion" only because they were negative, but that every other Atheists doesn't really have any beliefs. And I think the quotes are very welcome seeing as it appears no one knows very much about his true views on Christianity.

When something infriges on what I feel are my civil liberties and basic human rights I moan about it. I'm not one of those fervent get out in the street and wave a plackard- types. I'm more your armchair revolutionary wannabe. But when I'm moaning about something I like to pick out the worst examples of the thing I'm moaning about, in action.

It'd be kinda wierd to say "I hate christianity because they do a lot for charity and it gives people a nice sense of having something to look forward to" It's a much better debating tactic to folloaw a tack like "I hate it cos of the spanish inquisition" or the salem witch trials or the crusades or end timers, with their finger on the "Apocalypse Now" buttons.

Don't pretend the christain debating position anti-you name it, doesn't utilise the very same - ignore the plus points - strategy. One kid blows his own head off, listening to Judas Priest and suddenly rock music is the devil. I remember it only too well.

Thing is I take it from a pro's and con's position and imo the con's have it beat. Yes there are good things about christianity, and Gary Glitter sung Leader of the Gang. I still want him locked up away from my kids.

So what' your point yet again?Let us entertain the idea that this was the only factor involved...does this mean Christianity need be denounced because of a few mad men who believed things contrary to other Christian views? Oh wait...no, that's not it. We should just denounce all of religion as well because that's the problem. It has nothing to do with people's ignorance or insanity.I wonder how you view Stalins beliefs that had no affiliation to religion at all. I suppose that his beliefs were "like religion" only because they were negative, but that every other Atheists doesn't really have any beliefs. And I think the quotes are very welcome seeing as it appears no one knows very much about his true views on Christianity.

When something infriges on what I feel are my civil liberties and basic human rights I moan about it. I'm not one of those fervent get out in the street and wave a plackard- types. I'm more your armchair revolutionary wannabe. But when I'm moaning about something I like to pick out the worst examples of the thing I'm moaning about, in action.

It'd be kinda wierd to say "I hate christianity because they do a lot for charity and it gives people a nice sense of having something to look forward to" It's a much better debating tactic to folloaw a tack like "I hate it cos of the spanish inquisition" or the salem witch trials or the crusades or end timers, with their finger on the "Apocalypse Now" buttons.

Don't pretend the christain debating position anti-you name it, doesn't utilise the very same - ignore the plus points - strategy. One kid blows his own head off, listening to Judas Priest and suddenly rock music is the devil. I remember it only too well.

Thing is I take it from a pro's and con's position and imo the con's have it beat. Yes there are good things about christianity, and Gary Glitter sung Leader of the Gang. I still want him locked up away from my kids.

Well that's strange that the cons have the pros 'beat' since there have been more deaths done by governments with no religious means behind them in the past century than there have been in Christianity in the past 2000 years.

It seems to I that you guys completely and utterly do not view the pros and how great they truly are. Focussing on the negative in no way justifies the belief that the negative is moreso than the positive.

This is an unfair tactic and clearly an irrational one.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

I actually read over all the responses you gave and I have come to the conclusion that you are confused and unjustified in your claims.

Yet I'm basically agreeing with you!

So sllow down, and actually read what I say.

Quote:

First of all, you claim that dogmatism is the problem. Then you claim that ideologies and religion are the problem, thinkin that one automatically supports the other.

No, you're the one who is confused. Again, please read my post slowly and take some time to think it over.

I am saying, and I make it quite clear, that dogmatic adherence to beliefs is the problem. You yourself recognize this in the case of Stalin.

I then say that this is what religion and ideology share: dogmatic thinking. That is the real problem.

Quote:

The funny thing about it first is that you cannot seem to realized that you yourself are dogmatic,

Oh stop it. I am not being dogmatic. And the actual point before you is that atheism itself is not a dogma, nor does it insist on dogma.

Quote:

I would take your claim that Philosophy is immune from dogmatism to be an adequate example of this definition.

I never said that philosophy was immune from dogma!

You read too fast, and you make ridiculous leaps. Please slow down so that you can avoid all of these errors.

What I said was that religion sans dogma would become philosophy. This doesn't mean that all philosophy is free from dogma,all it requires is that some philosophy is without dogma.

You're making basic errors here because you're in a rush to attack, without bothering to first understand.

Consider philosophy without dogma as a 'square' and all philosophy as 'rectangles' Does that help you get past your mistake?

Quote:

Furthermore, you seem to believe you are free from ideologies,

Oh would you stop with this nonsense and deal with the actual arguments before you? Again, atheism itself is not an ideology.

Quote:

And good for you for picking up on my Stalin example.

I picked up on it 25 years before reading your post. I'm glad that we both see it, independently

Now here's what you are having a hard time picking up:

1) By recognizing stalin's flaw as dogmatic acceptance of ideology, you AGREE WITH MY POSITION HERE, that the problem is dogmatic belief. Now, the only step left for you is to recognize that both ideology AND religion inculcate dogmatic thinking.

2) You're avoiding dealing with my points on Luther. They demonstrate that the entire 'hitler was a christian?" argument is moot.

Quote:

I think you're digging a hole for yourself when you try to justify the acts of Stalin as "religious",

You have a reading comprehension problem. I have never said that his problems were religious. I cited dogmatic acceptance of ideology, and then said that religion, too, inculcates dogma.

You are confusing this for saying that ideology IS religion, because you're not bothering to understand what I am actually saying... if you did, you'd find out that you have already agreed with my points.

Quote:

but then say that you and other Atheists are immune from "dogmatism and ideologies".

No. I do not.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Every point you make has nothing to do with any post I've ever written during my life. Please ask questions in the future, as your assumptions have been wrong in every case so far.

Well that's strange that the cons have the pros 'beat' since there have been more deaths done by governments with no religious means behind them in the past century than there have been in Christianity in the past 2000 years.

Really? Love to see the source you're citing for this.

Or did you just pull it from the 'Ass, Things pulled from my' file?

Seriously, you yourself have already implicated dogmatic thinking as the root cause of the problems of Stalinism (how else would the communist believed in winter wheat if not throught dogma?) so the idea that purely secular governments are mass murderers seems unfounded even by your own arguments.

No. Sorry. He was excommunicated with the rest of the Nazis by the Catholic Church for simply being a Nazi.

Ok, I need some clarification here. I dug around for an hour or two, and the only places I could find that claimed the nazis were ever excommunicated were some sources that said that a conference of German bishops excommunicated all nazis in 1930. Is this what is being referred to in the post I am quoting? Would this remove any responsibility from the vatican to do the same? What I mean is, if the Germans excommunicated them, is that then a "universal truth" concerning the entire catholic church? Also, the nazi party grew much larger, and committed the majority of their collective atrocities after 1930. Would the excommunication extend to anyone who joined the nazis after 1930?

No. Sorry. He was excommunicated with the rest of the Nazis by the Catholic Church for simply being a Nazi.

Ok, I need some clarification here. I dug around for an hour or two, and the only places I could find that claimed the nazis were ever excommunicated were some sources that said that a conference of German bishops excommunicated all nazis in 1930.

I really don't see any basis for the claim either, considering that the church itself has admitted it didn't do enough during WWII.

At any rate, I see this all as moot, seeing as Hilter was calling upon pre existent christian inculcated hatred of jews... pogroms were around long before Hitler.

Well that's strange that the cons have the pros 'beat' since there have been more deaths done by governments with no religious means behind them in the past century than there have been in Christianity in the past 2000 years.

What you say is true, but there's some facts the skew the data.

First is population levels. The Spanish inquisition just didn't have that many people to kill. There was a huge population drop in the middle ages from disease. Second, it takes a lot of logistics and technology to kill a lot of people. I just don't think something like the Holocaust could have happened in the middle ages. If you would have given the inquisitors modern technology, who knows how many more deaths would've happened.

Well that's strange that the cons have the pros 'beat' since there have been more deaths done by governments with no religious means behind them in the past century than there have been in Christianity in the past 2000 years.

What you say is true,

Is it?

Can he demonstrate that governments, with NO religious means behind them are responsible for more slaughter than religiously driven slaughter?

So what' your point yet again?Let us entertain the idea that this was the only factor involved...does this mean Christianity need be denounced because of a few mad men who believed things contrary to other Christian views? Oh wait...no, that's not it. We should just denounce all of religion as well because that's the problem. It has nothing to do with people's ignorance or insanity.I wonder how you view Stalins beliefs that had no affiliation to religion at all. I suppose that his beliefs were "like religion" only because they were negative, but that every other Atheists doesn't really have any beliefs. And I think the quotes are very welcome seeing as it appears no one knows very much about his true views on Christianity.

When something infriges on what I feel are my civil liberties and basic human rights I moan about it. I'm not one of those fervent get out in the street and wave a plackard- types. I'm more your armchair revolutionary wannabe. But when I'm moaning about something I like to pick out the worst examples of the thing I'm moaning about, in action.

It'd be kinda wierd to say "I hate christianity because they do a lot for charity and it gives people a nice sense of having something to look forward to" It's a much better debating tactic to folloaw a tack like "I hate it cos of the spanish inquisition" or the salem witch trials or the crusades or end timers, with their finger on the "Apocalypse Now" buttons.

Don't pretend the christain debating position anti-you name it, doesn't utilise the very same - ignore the plus points - strategy. One kid blows his own head off, listening to Judas Priest and suddenly rock music is the devil. I remember it only too well.

Thing is I take it from a pro's and con's position and imo the con's have it beat. Yes there are good things about christianity, and Gary Glitter sung Leader of the Gang. I still want him locked up away from my kids.

Well that's strange that the cons have the pros 'beat' since there have been more deaths done by governments with no religious means behind them in the past century than there have been in Christianity in the past 2000 years. It seems to I that you guys completely and utterly do not view the pros and how great they truly are. Focussing on the negative in no way justifies the belief that the negative is moreso than the positive. This is an unfair tactic and clearly an irrational one.

Suggest read 1st sentence again. It trod on my toes. I plan to destroy it. The more I find out about it the less I find to like. All the good points are pretty much on the surface - christians wave those around like merit badges. The deeper you dig the grubbier it all starts to look. There is no justification for promoting a mental illness such as blind faith therefore I make my stand.

Rules of debate = If I can make it look worse than you can make it look good then I've won. So Hitler is our latest poster boy.

Problem with debating with those suffering from faith disorder = It's impossible to make a point using rational argument.

Well that's strange that the cons have the pros 'beat' since there have been more deaths done by governments with no religious means behind them in the past century than there have been in Christianity in the past 2000 years.

What you say is true,

Is it?

Can he demonstrate that governments, with NO religious means behind them are responsible for more slaughter than religiously driven slaughter?

He's making quite a claim, think it over.

And yes, the rest of your points are good ones regardless...

I need to be more precise in the future. I was agreeing with the fact that Hitler, Stalin, etc. had killed more people than the Inquisition, Crusades, Witch Hunts, etc.

I think it's clear that Hitler used, among other things, religious beliefs to support his actions.

No, you're the one who is confused. Again, please read my post slowly and take some time to think it over.

I am saying, and I make it quite clear, that dogmatic adherence to beliefs is the problem. You yourself recognize this in the case of Stalin.

I then say that this is what religion and ideology share: dogmatic thinking. That is the real problem.

First of all, I never stated that "dogmatic thinking" was the problem, so we do not agree on that point. This is what I said about dogmatism:

M wrote:

...though there is nothing wrong with being dogmatic in and of itself...(7th reply, 2nd paragraph)

And this is what I thought was wrong with Stalin:

M wrote:

It goes to show that any ideology and any religion can be abused and that we judge whether they are abused or not on the basis of a Natural Law ("good" and "Evil"/"negative" and "positive&quot.(7th reply, 6th paragraph)

todangst wrote:

Oh stop it. I am not being dogmatic. And the actual point before you is that atheism itself is not a dogma, nor does it insist on dogma.

I never stated that Atheism was in and of itself a 'dogma'. I merely stated that Atheists are not immune from beliefs (ideologies, etc.):

M wrote:

Atheism, in and of itself cannot produce something becauseby definition it is a lack of belief in something; however, this does not exclude Atheists in the least bit from belief.(OP, 3rd to last paragraph)

todangst wrote:

I never said that philosophy was immune from dogma!

You read too fast, and you make ridiculous leaps. Please slow down so that you can avoid all of these errors.

What I said was that religion sans dogma would become philosophy. This doesn't mean that all philosophy is free from dogma,all it requires is that some philosophy is without dogma.

You're making basic errors here because you're in a rush to attack, without bothering to first understand.

Consider philosophy without dogma as a 'square' and all philosophy as 'rectangles' Does that help you get past your mistake?

Either of the following has occured: The English language has changed dramatically in the past few hours, I didn't read your mind correctly, you were unable to clarify your position earlier (not that I agree with it now or anything), or you are blatantly covering up for the obvious generalization:

todangst wrote:

Do you want a religion without dogma? We already have a name for that: philosophy. (1st reply, last paragraph)

Here you basically state that the only religion/ideology without dogma is Philosophy. You never said "some philosophy" or any of the other stuff you said above. This was the only comment that was stated.

todangst wrote:

Oh would you stop with this nonsense and deal with the actual arguments before you? Again, atheism itself is not an ideology.

As I stated before, I never once said that Atheism was an ideology. You even confess that I didn't say this while also confessing the possibility of Atheists having ideologies:

todangst wrote:

You've just said that atheism itself is not the cause. That's all that matters here. Whether or not a particular atheist holds to an ideaology is therefore moot. (1st reply, 3rd to last paragraph)

todangst wrote:

I picked up on it 25 years before reading your post. I'm glad that we both see it, independently

Good that you picked up on it so long ago; however, I have a hard time figuring out why you somehow believe that dogmatism and religion/ideology are mutual concepts and that all dogmatism is somehow a bad thing.

todangst wrote:

Now here's what you are having a hard time picking up:

1) By recognizing stalin's flaw as dogmatic acceptance of ideology, you AGREE WITH MY POSITION HERE, that the problem is dogmatic belief. Now, the only step left for you is to recognize that both ideology AND religion inculcate dogmatic thinking.

I agree with you on nothing of the sort. You fabricated that from your own misreading of the obvious. And what I find absurd is that after saying that religion and ideologies are the problem because of dogmatism:

todangst wrote:

You've just come close to identifying the real problem: dogmatic acceptance of beliefs. Both religion and ideaologies inspire such thinking, hence they are in fact the problem.

...which is odd because no one is immune from ideologies or beliefs.

todangst wrote:

2) You're avoiding dealing with my points on Luther. They demonstrate that the entire 'hitler was a christian?" argument is moot.

That's because I find it to be irrelevant. You bringing up Luther's anti-semitism doesn't prove that Christianity incites anti-semitism. Your argument is basically the same as claiming that we should ban hammers from society because someone used a hammer to commit a murder.

todangst wrote:

You have a reading comprehension problem. I have never said that his problems were religious. I cited dogmatic acceptance of ideology, and then said that religion, too, inculcates dogma.

You are confusing this for saying that ideology IS religion, because you're not bothering to understand what I am actually saying... if you did, you'd find out that you have already agreed with my points.

No. I have not confused anything. You made the blatant claim that religion AND ideology are to blame in your previous reply.

todangst wrote:

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Every point you make has nothing to do with any post I've ever written during my life. Please ask questions in the future, as your assumptions have been wrong in every case so far.

Oh really? Perhaps you should check the references I cited in this rebuttal before making another puffed up claim.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

Well that's strange that the cons have the pros 'beat' since there have been more deaths done by governments with no religious means behind them in the past century than there have been in Christianity in the past 2000 years.

Really? Love to see the source you're citing for this.

Or did you just pull it from the 'Ass, Things pulled from my' file?

Seriously, you yourself have already implicated dogmatic thinking as the root cause of the problems of Stalinism (how else would the communist believed in winter wheat if not throught dogma?) so the idea that purely secular governments are mass murderers seems unfounded even by your own arguments.

I enjoy this article. Tell me what you think. And please point out if it's insufficient. Also note that it does not account for "war dead", but it is still telling and makes a point:

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

If you find anything wrong with it please make a correction and I will note it and look elsewhere for more credible information.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

I read the article at the apologetics site and it is worthless. They fail to recognize that the communist countries of China, Russia etc that killed vast amounts of people during the 20th century were inherently religious.

M, have you ever studied the history of communist China or Russia? I live in China. I have studied this for years. I have been to Tianamen, to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, to Stalingrad. All communist ideologies share an underlying dogmatic disease known as the cult of personality which is inherently religious. I'll just repeat my old post to back up this point:

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

I read the article at the apologetics site and it is worthless. They fail to recognize that the communist countries of China, Russia etc that killed vast amounts of people during the 20th century were inherently religious.M, have you ever studied the history of communist China or Russia? I live in China. I have studied this for years. I have been to Tianamen, to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, to Stalingrad. All communist ideologies share an underlying dogmatic disease known as the cult of personality which is inherently religious. I'll just repeat my old post to back up this point:

I would also like to point out that there is a difference between religion and ideology on several grounds and that still, regardless of the belief in God or not, Atheists are not immune from these sort of beliefs.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

I was going to finish it by saying that atheists are of course not immune from this. We never claimed to be "more moral" in any way (that claim is reserved for theists who think that one cannot be moral without God). But if you look at history, there have been five reasons for genocide and mass murder: Religion, money, power, land and natural resources. Of course non-believers have had a share of doing this, but People may kill for faith, but I have never heard of someone killing in the name of lack of faith.

I was then going to back this up by reiterating my previous post:

throughout history, there have been three types of despots. The ones that decided to utilize religion to keep the masses in check (Hitler), the ones who saw it as a threat and destroyed it (Stalin, although in fairness, the communist countries were such extreme cults of personality that they were essentially religious), or the religious leaders who keep the people in check and at the same time, are also imprisoned by their insane beliefs (Ayatollah Khomeini and Tomas de Torquemada). Whichever one you choose does not change the fact that you are a despot, so what is the point of this argument? The argument "communists were atheist and atheism is therefore no better than the Christians who boiled people alive during the Inquisition and pogroms" is a historical fallacy. Check this post I wrote a week ago: But the point I was trying to make over and over again was that the communists most definitely were not atheist in any real sense of the word. They may have thought they were, but they were crazy. They were a cult, they WORSHIPPED their leaders. They bowed to their portraits. Have you ever looked at Communist China or Russia? The Great Leap Forward? The Cultural Revolution? Why did the cultural revolution happen? How was Mao able to thwart the Moderates and get Lin Bao on his side? He printed millions of copies of the little red book (more red books have been printed than bibles) and distributed them across the PLA? How was he able to raise an army of young fanatics to destroy the capitalist influence coming from the moderate right? Communist China had the most effective brainwashing program in history. These kids were prepared to kill (and they definitely did, almost 20 million people) and die for Mao. He raised a fucking army of Red Guards who went on one of the most awful reigns of terror in history. So the people worshipped him, thought him a demigod, killed for him, died for him, his book of "wisdom" was more widely read than the bible, everyone had to read it under pain of death.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

You're unable to grasp that ideology is fueled by dogmatic thinking.... you can't see the connection, but that's your error, not mine.

todangst wrote:

No, you're the one who is confused. Again, please read my post slowly and take some time to think it over.

I am saying, and I make it quite

clear, that dogmatic adherence to beliefs is the problem. You yourself recognize this in the case of Stalin.

I then say that this is what religion and ideology share: dogmatic thinking. That is the real problem.

Quote:

First of all, I never stated that "dogmatic thinking" was the problem,

You cited ideology as the problem in Stalinism - ideology is inspried by dogmatic thinking. Those who doubted Marxism, even when they had facts, were killed.

Dogmatism.

Sorry you're unable to follow that.

M wrote:

...though there is nothing wrong with being dogmatic in and of itself...(7th reply, 2nd paragraph)

Yes there is - dogmatic thinking is closed minded thinking. It naysays reality, if reality contradicts a belief.

It's behind ideology. And religion.

todangst wrote:

Oh stop it. I am not being dogmatic. And the actual point before you is that atheism itself is not a dogma, nor does it insist on dogma.

Quote:

I never stated that Atheism was in and of itself a 'dogma'.

No kidding, hence there's no reason to make claims about individuals in particular, as we are talking about systems and not people.

You're just not able to follow this are you?

We are talking about various systems and whether they inspire dogma.... so speaking about individuals has no role here.... what matters is that atheism itself does not demand dogma, so speaking about individual atheists misses the point entirely.

So please stop making this error.

todangst wrote:

I never said that philosophy was immune from dogma!

You read too fast, and you make ridiculous leaps. Please slow down so that you can avoid all of these errors.

What I said was that religion sans dogma would become philosophy. This doesn't mean that all philosophy is free from dogma,all it requires is that some philosophy is without dogma.

You're making basic errors here because you're in a rush to attack, without bothering to first understand.

Consider philosophy without dogma as a 'square' and all philosophy as 'rectangles' Does that help you get past your mistake?

Quote:

Either of the following has occured: The English language has changed dramatically in the past few hours, I didn't read your mind correctly,

You couldn't read my post correctly, and I corrected your error above. Stop trying to blame the planet earth for your own error.

todangst wrote:

Do you want a religion without dogma? We already have a name for that: philosophy. (1st reply, last paragraph)

Quote:

Here you basically state that the only religion/ideology without dogma is Philosophy.

Again, you're wrong. I explained what this means above, YOUR ERROR is that you assume that this means that EVERY philosophy must be without dogma, you're making a childish error.

Cars have doors

Houses have doors

Therefore, cars are houses.

This is your thinking here.

todangst wrote:

Oh would you stop with this nonsense and deal with the actual arguments before you? Again, atheism itself is not an ideology.

Quote:

As I stated before, I never once said that Atheism was an ideology.

Yes, and again, that's precisely why I bring this up: this means there's no need to speak about individual atheists, only atheism itself.

You still don't get it, do you?

Again, you're very, very confused.

todangst wrote:

You've just said that atheism itself is not the cause. That's all that matters here. Whether or not a particular atheist holds to an ideaology is therefore moot. (1st reply, 3rd to last paragraph)

Right, and that is why I told you not to address me in particular, but to stick to the topic - systems of thought or atheism, a lack of belief, which is precisely what you managed to cite here.

Now actually have an adult read what's quoted above to you, slowly, while holding your hand and giving you time for a nap if it gets too hard. You'll see that this is in fact precisely what I said to you.

todangst wrote:

Now here's what you are having a hard time picking up:

1) By recognizing stalin's flaw as dogmatic acceptance of ideology, you AGREE WITH MY POSITION HERE, that the problem is dogmatic belief. Now, the only step left for you is to recognize that both ideology AND religion inculcate dogmatic thinking.

Quote:

I agree with you on nothing of the sort. You fabricated that from your own misreading of the obvious.

No, it's your own inability to follow the ramifications of your own words if 'ideology' is the problem, then you are identifying dogmatism as a problem.

I even say it here:

todangst wrote:

You've just come close to identifying the real problem: dogmatic acceptance of beliefs. Both religion and ideaologies inspire such thinking, hence they are in fact the problem.

Quote:

...which is odd because no one is immune from ideologies or beliefs.

Again, that's not the point. You're just not able to grasp the obvious, are you?

The point is that ideology and religion inspire dogma... while any one person may become a dogmatist, not every system of thought inspires dogma.

Notice how many times I have to make this correction for you. Over and over again I have to point out that we are discussing systems, and whether the system itself requires dogma, not whether or not any one individual may hold to dogma.

You STILL won't get this, will you?

todangst wrote:

2) You're avoiding dealing with my points on Luther. They demonstrate that the entire 'hitler was a christian?" argument is moot.

Quote:

That's because I find it to be irrelevant.

Who cares what you think? You're not capable of making a sound judgment, you can't even read a post accurately.

*****************

Have an adult read this to you:

Please stop replying to what you believe are my posts, you're not able to read them accuately, let alone understand them or respond to them.

I was going to finish it by saying that atheists are of course not immune from this. We never claimed to be "more moral" in any way (that claim is reserved for theists who think that one cannot be moral without God). But if you look at history, there have been five reasons for genocide and mass murder: Religion, money, power, land and natural resources. Of course non-believers have had a share of doing this, but People may kill for faith, but I have never heard of someone killing in the name of lack of faith.

I agree that it is wrong and irrational for certain Theists to claim that a person cannot be moral without God, but I do feel that the argument that Atheists cannot justify their morality is still a very valid argument.

And I would agree that people do not and cannot kill in the name of "lack of faith"; however, we could say that people can and may kill in the name of "destroying faith".

And for another point, simply because one kills in the name of something doesn't make that something automatically wrong. Many people, centuries ago used to kill by the name of the loved ones they were trying to avenge, in the name of "freedom", "liberty", "justice", etc. Certainly no name, concept, or ideology is free from abuse. We could argue, however that certain ideologies taken to their logical conclusions are in fact wrong.

deludedgod wrote:

I was then going to back this up by reiterating my previous post:

throughout history, there have been three types of despots. The ones that decided to utilize religion to keep the masses in check (Hitler), the ones who saw it as a threat and destroyed it (Stalin, although in fairness, the communist countries were such extreme cults of personality that they were essentially religious), or the religious leaders who keep the people in check and at the same time, are also imprisoned by their insane beliefs (Ayatollah Khomeini and Tomas de Torquemada).

There are probably more despots than that.

deludedgod wrote:

Whichever one you choose does not change the fact that you are a despot, so what is the point of this argument? The argument "communists were atheist and atheism is therefore no better than the Christians who boiled people alive during the Inquisition and pogroms" is a historical fallacy.

Yes, if you use target "Atheism".

deludedgod wrote:

Check this post I wrote a week ago: But the point I was trying to make over and over again was that the communists most definitely were not atheist in any real sense of the word. They may have thought they were, but they were crazy.

No True Scottsman

Ad hom

Poisoning the well

They were certainly Atheists. You even admitted that Atheists are not immune from beliefs, so therefore they can still be Atheists and have these ideologies.

deludedgod wrote:

They were a cult, they WORSHIPPED their leaders. They bowed to their portraits. Have you ever looked at Communist China or Russia? The Great Leap Forward? The Cultural Revolution? Why did the cultural revolution happen? How was Mao able to thwart the Moderates and get Lin Bao on his side? He printed millions of copies of the little red book (more red books have been printed than bibles) and distributed them across the PLA? How was he able to raise an army of young fanatics to destroy the capitalist influence coming from the moderate right? Communist China had the most effective brainwashing program in history. These kids were prepared to kill (and they definitely did, almost 20 million people) and die for Mao. He raised a fucking army of Red Guards who went on one of the most awful reigns of terror in history. So the people worshipped him, thought him a demigod, killed for him, died for him, his book of "wisdom" was more widely read than the bible, everyone had to read it under pain of death.

Yes, in the name of killing off the unwanteds, the religious, the sick, the weak, and the opposition. For Stalin and Hitler it was Neo Darwinian thought and for the sake of their society, for the others, it was power and for the sake of their own political theories.

So how in any way does this justify destroying religion when we have prime examples here of Atheists doing exactly the same things as the "evil religious people"?

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

Browsing this forum for some time I have often seen the argument that Hitler was a Christian, as though it had some sort of meaning behind it.

The flaw in this argument is that it's completely moot as to whether Hitler was a christian.. I could give you an even longer list of pro christian quotes, and we could just play a game of selective quoting all day, but both arguments are moot.

What matters is that Hitler called upon the christian hatred of jews inspired by the german Martin Luther. Hitler didn't invent christian hatred of jews. Christians did. Christians already had no problem hating jews. Hitler merely called upon this pre-existent hatred in order to generate the scapegoat that any dictator requires for power.

Now, take a look at what Martin Luther, the most influential german theologian in history, had to say about the jews, and you tell me if Luther's hatred didn't play a role in the holocaust:

Luther's Racism

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph

Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews:

(1) burn their schools and synagogues;

(2) transfer Jews to community settlements;

sound familiar?

(3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous;

(4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death;

(5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism;

(6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury;

(7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.

sound familiar?

Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?

Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.

So again, whatever Hitler's religion was (and he was religious) its moot. What matters is that christianity itself had already inculcated hatred of jews, and Hitler called upon that religious hatred.

Dogmatism is not necessarily 'close-mindedness'. It is merely arrogant assertions of a belief as fact. We all do this from time to time (you being a prime example in this thread). It can be close-minded thinking, but it doesn't have to be and nor does it make it any less true.

And as I pointed above, Ideologies are not always about dogmatism.

todangst wrote:

Yes, so there's no need to talk about me in particular.

you're very confused.

I never said there was a 'need' to talk about you in particular. I merely mentioned that you were dogmatic in your previous assertion that the one religion/ideology that was immune from dogma was Philosophy. And as I stated before, simply because you are an Atheists doesn't mean you cannot be dogmatic. So you are not immune from being called dogmatic.

todangst wrote:

Again, you're wrong. I explained what I meant above.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

So you basically are covering up for the rash generalization you made in your first reply by stating that I have reading comprehension problems because you failed to clarify till your third response.

Got you

todangst wrote:

Yes, and again, this means there's no need to speak about individual atheists.

Again, you're very, very confused.

And as I pointed out before, I never stated there was a need to do so to begin with, but that you are still not immune from these things regardless if you want to be or not Mr. Rational.

todangst wrote:

Right, and that is why I told you not to address me in particular, but to stick to the topic, which is precisely what you managed to cite here.

you're very confused.

I think anyone who clearly reads this will not be saying that I'm the confused one.

todangst wrote:

No, it's your own inability to follow the ramifications of your own words if 'ideology' is the problem, then you are identifying dogmatism as a problem.

Interesting because you make the distinction between the two here:

todangst wrote:

stalin killed in the name of his dogmatic ideaology. (first reply)

...and here:

todangst wrote:

You've just come close to identifying the real problem: dogmatic acceptance of beliefs. Both religion and ideaologies inspire such thinking, hence they are in fact the problem. (first reply)

Simply because they inspire such thinking doesn't mean they are such thinking.

todangst wrote:

I even say it here:

todangst wrote:

You've just come close to identifying the real problem: dogmatic acceptance of beliefs. Both religion and ideaologies inspire such thinking, hence they are in fact the problem.

No, because ideology and dogma are not necessarily the same things. Furthermore, I know you said it there, which is why I quoted you because you also said:

todangst wrote:

Do you want a religion without dogma? We already have a name for that: philosophy. (1st reply)

...thinking that somehow Atheists are immune from these things and that Philosophy was the only 'religion/ideology' (you said it) that was without a dogma.

Please stop lying.

todangst wrote:

Again, that's not the point. You're just not able to grasp the obvious, are you?

The point I've been trying to make is that Atheists are not immune from ideologies or dogmatism...the very same point you have been trying to avoid.

todangst wrote:

The point is that ideology and religion inspire dogma... while any one person may become a dogmatist, not every system of thought inspires dogma.

That's the first time you've actually even said something like that in this whole discussion (aside from your "some philosophy" comment). Atheists are not immune from dogma, ideologies, or religion because no system of thought is immune from dogma, being an ideology, or a religion.

todangst wrote:

You're not capable of making a sound judgment, you can't even read a post accurately.

Speak for yourself

The rest of your replies are merely hand waving while stating that I am 'confused' and 'can't read', when the obvious is on you. It should be obvious to any reader here that you didn't make any sort of distinctions till later after your first reply, then trying to say that you had said these things "all along".

Perhaps you have been so dogmatic in your ideology that we Theists are irrational and mentally ill that you can't even catch on to your own obvious errors.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

am unable to follow that because it's illogical to follow seeing as ideology is not simply about dogmatic thinking:

Dictionary.com wrote:

Ideology:
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.[i]

This could include anything from Social Contract Theory, Socialism, Facism, your daily work out plan, etc.etc.

So are you going to put up the definition of dogma to compare? I'll do it for you

Dictionary.com wrote:

dogma
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

They were certainly Atheists. You even admitted that Atheists are not immune from beliefs, so therefore they can still be Atheists and have these ideologies.

Notice how often this guy makes the same mistake. I identified it above.

The point here is that atheism itself doesn't require dogma, as even you yourself agree (sigh, I can't believe I have to stress EVEN THIS for him) ergo asserting that atheists may be dogmatic is moot.

He's already agreed that atheism is not the cause, ergo he's claimed that it is incidental

Wearing pant is also incidental to the effects of communism.

ergo, his argument is this:

communists wear pants, ergo people who wear pants may also be dogmatic.

The point is that Atheists are not immune from these things simply because they are Atheists, therefore it is irrational to call for the destruction of ideologies and religion, when you yourselves are not and can never be immune from them.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

am unable to follow that because it's illogical to follow seeing as ideology is not simply about dogmatic thinking:

Dictionary.com wrote:

Ideology: the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.[i] This could include anything from Social Contract Theory, Socialism, Facism, your daily work out plan, etc.etc.

So are you going to put up the definition of dogma to compare? I'll do it for you

Dictionary.com wrote:

dogma 1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church. 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption. 3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma. 4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Dictionary.com also has it that it as "An arrogant assertion of opinions as truth etc.".

And if you notice ideology and dogma are not necessarily the same things and do not have to be. They are very flexible definitions in and of themselves.

That is why I cannot understand why Todangsts seperated the two in his first response and then went on to claim that ideology and dogmatism are the same things.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.

Dictionary.com also has it that it as "An arrogant assertion of opinions as truth etc.".

That's not how we're using the term. You didn't even quote all the definitions of ideology.

Dictionary.com also has Ideology. as : "such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation."

That's closer to what we're talking about than the definition you gave.

M wrote:

And if you notice ideology and dogma are not necessarily the same things and do not have to be. They are very flexible definitions in and of themselves.

Yes, there's flexibility. But the question here is are Communism and Facism dogmatic? We're not talking about exercise plans.

M wrote:

That is why I cannot understand why Todangsts seperated the two in his first response and then went on to claim that ideology and dogmatism are the same things.

He's talking about the political ideologies of communism and fascism. I think you're using "ideology" in a different way the todangst is. You want to make your definition of ideology as wide as possible, including exercise plans. We're talking about a more narrow usage.

am unable to follow that because it's illogical to follow seeing as ideology is not simply about dogmatic thinking:

Dictionary.com wrote:

Ideology: the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.[i] This could include anything from Social Contract Theory, Socialism, Facism, your daily work out plan, etc.etc.

So are you going to put up the definition of dogma to compare? I'll do it for you

Dictionary.com wrote:

dogma 1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church. 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption. 3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma. 4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

It's just painful having to repeat the obvious again and again. The problem with Stalinism wasn't that they had BELIEFS, EVERYONE HAS BELIEFS, THE PROBLEM is that they held to their beliefs DOGMATICALLY.

Our inept friend can't accept this simple reality, becuase he realizes that it will force him to concede that religion is just as problematic as Stalinism.

That is why I cannot understand why Todangsts seperated the two in his first response and then went on to claim that ideology and dogmatism are the same things.

He's talking about the political ideologies of communism and fascism.

M is confused as usual. The point all along is that ideology is driven by dogma. They are not the same thing.

Every time he makes a claim about my posts,he gets it dead wrong.

Quote:

I think you're using "ideology" in a different way the todangst is.

No, he's just being dishonest to the point of self refutation. He brought up Stalinism himself, and now that this argument will backfire on him, he's got to try and reinvent 'ideology' as an exercise program.

But is that the sense that HE brought up the term? NO! He was talking about Stalinism!

Quote:

You want to make your definition of ideology as wide as possible, including exercise plans. We're talking about a more narrow usage.

Actually, his attempt to widen the term is a dishonest attempt to run from the ramifications of his own argument: if Stalin's ideology is wrong, and the reason that it's wrong is dogmatism, then he's in trouble concerning his own dogma.

M, maybe you should read about Lysenkoism. Maybe you'll see the dogmatism of communist ideology.

Some highlights from the linked article:

Quote:

Between 1934 and 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's blessings, many geneticists were executed (including Agol, Levit, and Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943. Genetics was stigmatized as a "bourgeois science" or "fascist science" (due to the fact that fascists — particularly the Nazis in Germany — embraced genetics and attempted to use it to justify their theories on eugenics and the master race). Some Soviet geneticists, however, survived and continued to work in genetics, dangerous as it was.,

In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience"; all geneticists were fired from work (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. Nikita Khrushchev, who fancied himself as an expert in agricultural science, also valued Lysenko as a great scientist, and the taboo on genetics continued (but all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously). Only in the middle of the 1960s was it waived. As a consequence, Lysenkoism caused serious, long-term harm to Soviet biology. It represented a serious failure of the early Soviet leadership to find real solutions to agricultural problems, allowing their system to be hijacked by a charlatan — at the expense of many human lives. Lysenkoism also spread to China, where it continued long after it was eventually denounced by the Soviets.

I mentioned winter wheat in passing, but the point likely went way over M's head, to the point that if he could latch onto it, he could use it to hang glide.

Again, the very reason for bringing up the ideology of Stalinism is to point to how dogmatic adherence to it leads to problems. If Stalin's ideas were a scientific hypothesis that the Stalinists tried out as an experiment, it would have died by 1922. So the problem is that Stalin held to it as a dogma.

Again, it's amazing that this has to be pointed out, seeing as it could the only reason for implicating 'ideology' as a problem.... but of course, when I pointed out that it was dogma that was the problem, a dogmatist had to respond by blanking out reality.... no surprise there...

todangst, I agree with you. I was trying to tone down my first draft, so I gave M the benefit of the doubt. He is being dishonest if he starts out with communism/fascism and ends up with an exercise program.

Is it just me or has the level of trolling around here gone up in the last couple weeks?

The real problem is his rush to prove his points, which leads to rather humorous misreadings of my posts... If I say that religion sans dogma is philosophy, then immediately he's got me saying that all philosophy is free of any dogmatic thinking for all times....... it's a juvenile way to read things - very concrete.

And this entire process is born, no doubt, of his own dogmatic need to reject dogma as closed mindedness....